Many people have helped me with this paper. I would like to thank Alexander J. Field, Antonio Gilman, Isebille Gruhn, Jay Mandle, Juan Martinez-Alier, Ben Tipton and the members of the Santa Cruz Seminar in Comparative History for encouragement and suggestions. I am especially indebted to Richard Gordon and Walter Goldfrank for criticisms and discussion. Of course, I alone am responsible for what follows.

¹ Mörner, Magnus, “A Comparative Study of Tenant Labor in Parts of Europe, Africa, and Latin America 1700–1900: A Preliminary Report of a Research Project in Social History,” Latin American Research Review, 5 (1970), 3–15.Google Scholar The eleven examples are Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Northeastern Germany, Northwestern Germany, Egypt, South Africa, the Ecuadorian Sierra, the Peruvian Coast, Chile, Northeastern Brazil.

0010–4175/79/4105–9531 $2.00 © Society for Comparative Study of Society and History

² The most prominent exceptions I have found in the literature are Mörner, Magnus and Bauer, Arnold, Chilean Rural Society From the Spanish Conquest to 1930 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975).Google Scholar

³ Hirschman, Albert, Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1970).Google Scholar

⁴ Cf. Polanyi, Karl, The Great Transformation (Boston: Beacon, 1957)Google Scholar, or Scott, James C., The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Subsistence and Rebellion in Southeast Asia (New Haven: Yale, 1977).Google Scholar Such incentives were especially important because the consolidation of property rights had eliminated the old communal subsistence guarantees.

⁵ “The Naming of Cats is a difficult matter, It isn't just one of your holiday games;” Eliot, T. S., “The Naming of Cats,” from Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats, reprinted in The Complete Poems and Plays, 1909–1950 (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1962), p. 149.Google Scholar

⁶ Martinez-Alier, Juan, Haciendas, Plantations and Collective Farms: Agrarian Class Societies—Cuba and Peru (London: Frank Cass, 1977).Google Scholar He makes the same point for Southern Spain in his Labourers and Landowners in Southern Spain (London: Allen and Unwin, 1971).Google Scholar

⁷ Kautsky, Karl, La Cueslión Agraria (Paris: Ruedo Ibérico, 1970), p. 169Google Scholar (Spanish translation of Die Agrarfrage, 1899Google Scholar). My italics. Wunderlich, Frieda, Farm Labor in Germany, 1810–1945 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961), p. 17CrossRefGoogle Scholar calls the Insten system “semi-feudal.”

⁸ Laclau, Ernesto, “Feudalism and Capitalism in Latin America,” New Left Review, 67.Google ScholarIbrahim, 'Amr, Al-ard w 'al-fellah: al-mas 'Hah al-zira 'iyyahfi misr (The Land and the Peasant: The Agrarian Problem in Egypt) (Cairo: Matba 'at al-dar al misriyyah, 1958), p. 129.Google Scholar

⁹ “In Mecklenburg and Vorpommern it (Bauernlegen) led to the total eradication of a free peasantry, the destruction of almost all the villages and the creation in their place of estate villages (Gutsweiler) dominated by the estate buildings, which were surrounded by the small cottages of the estate workers.” Mayhew, Alan, Rural Settlement and Farming in Germany (London: B. T. Batsford, 1973), p. 143.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Ipsen, Gunther, “Die preussische Bauernbefreiung als Landesausbau,” Zeitschrift für Agrargeschichte und Agrarsoziologie, 2 (1954), 29–54, 32.Google Scholar

¹¹ Abel, Wilhelm, Geschichte der deutschen Landwirtschaft vomfrühen Mittelalterbiszum 19. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart: Eugen Ulmer, 1967), p. 208.Google Scholar

¹² Conze, Werner, “Sozialgeschichte, 1800–1850,” in Aubin, Hermann and Zorn, Wolfgang, eds., Handbuch der deutschen Wirtschafts-und Sozialgeschichte, Vol. 2 (Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag, 1976), 426–84, 438.Google ScholarFranz, Gunther, “Landwirtschaft, 1800–1850,”Google Scholar in idem, 276–320, 303.

¹³ Lütge, Friedrich, Deutsche Sozial und Wirtschaftsgeschichte (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1960), 389–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴ Calculated from Table 6 in Franz, G., 305.Google Scholar

¹⁵ I have discussed the emergence of these estates in more detail in “Primitive Accumulation in Egypt, 1798–1882,” Review, I: 2 (Fall, 1977), 3–49.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Gongora, Mario, Origin de los Inquilinos de Chile Central (Santiago: Editorial Universitaria, 1960), esp. pp. 113–17.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Mishkin, Alexander Schejtman, El Inquilino de Chile Central (Santiago:Google ScholarInstituto de Capacitación y Investigación en Reforma Agraria, 1971), pp. 19–20.Google ScholarBauer, Arnold, Chilean Rural Society from the Spanish Conquest to 1930 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), p. 51,Google Scholar although Bauer tends to minimize the impact of exports.

¹⁸ See especially Schejtman, , pp. 192–95.Google Scholar Bauer, Chap. 6. The ratio of an index of wages to that of food prices fell from 100 in 1846–50 to41 in 1886–90. Calculated from Bauer, Table 31, p. 156.

¹⁹ Bloch, Marc, Feudal Society, Manyon, L. A., trans. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), Chap. 15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarAnderson, Perry, Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism (London: New Left Books, 1974).Google Scholar See especially “The Feudal Mode of Production,” pp. 147–53.Google Scholar

²⁰ Anderson, , 148–59,Google Scholar citing Engels, among others. See also Postan, M. M., The Medieval Economy and Society: An Economic History of Britain in the Middle Ages (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1975), pp. 89–94.Google ScholarBrenner, Robert, “Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Develop ment in Pre-Industrial Europe,” Past and Present, 70 (02 1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar rightly emphasizes the importance of this relative autonomy of the peasants for class conflict under feudalism.

²¹ For Egypt, see 'Amr: Nahas, Joseph, Situation économique el sociale du fellah égyptien (Paris: A. Rousseau, 1901),Google Scholar among others. For Chile, , Bauer, Arnold, pp. 96, 166.Google Scholar For Prussia, Wunderlich, Chap. 1, Franz, Conze, and especially Weber, Max, Die Verhältnisse der Landarbeiler im ostelbischen Deutschland (Leipzig: Verlag von Ducker and Humbolt, 1892), pp. 9–20.Google Scholar

²² Bauer, p.52Google Scholar; the last obstacle to full private property rights in labor power in Egypt were removed by the British abolition of the corvee in 1890.

²³ See below, IV.

²⁴ Loveman, Brian, Struggle in the Countryside: Politics and Rural Labor in Chile, 1919–1973 (Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1976), p. 29.Google Scholar

²⁵ Franz, , 301–1;Google ScholarWunderlich, , p. 18.Google Scholar

²⁶ Weber, Max, “Capitalism and Rural Society in Germany,” in Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. Wright, eds., From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1958) pp. 363–85. Quote on p. 367.Google Scholar

²⁷ Cohen, Jon S. and Weitzman, Martin L., “Enclosures and Depopulation: A Marxian Analysis,” in Parker, William and Jones, Eric, eds., European Peasants and Their Markets: Essays in Agrarian Economic History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975) pp. 161–76.Google Scholar

²⁸ Kula, Witold, An Economic Theory of the Feudal System: Towards a Model of the Polish Economy 1500–1800, Garner, Lawrence, trans. (London: New Left Books, 1976).Google Scholar

²⁹ See below, IV.

³⁰ Abel, , p. 329.Google Scholar

³¹ Ibid. p. 330.

³² Görlitz, Walter, Die Junker: Adel und Bauer im deutschen Osten, 2nd. ed. (Glücksburg/Ostsee: C. A. Starke Verlag, 1956), pp. 211, 221.Google Scholar

³³ Abel, , p. 340, n. 1.Google Scholar

³⁴ Gorlitz, , p. 222.Google Scholar

³⁵ Ibid., p. 211. The second generation “verjunkerlichte.”

³⁶ Ibid. p. 221. Stem, Fritz, “Prussia,” in Spring, David, ed., European Landed Elites in the Nineteenth Century (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins, 1977), pp. 45–67.Google Scholar

³⁷ See, for example. Weber, Max: “By an estate we understand a large-scale capitalistic establishment directed to production for the market.” General Economic History. Knight, Frank H., trans. (London and New York: Collier Books, 1961), p. 76Google Scholar; Frank, Andre Gunder, Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1969)Google Scholar; Amin, Samir, Unequal Development. Pearce, Brian, trans. (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1977);Google ScholarWallerstein, Immanuel, The Modern World System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century (New York: Academic Press, 1974).Google Scholar

³⁸ Most recently, Brenner, Robert, “The Origins of Capitalist Development: A Critique of Neo-Smithian Marxism,” New Left Review, 104.Google Scholar

³⁹ Brenner, , 15, 3 (of ms.), my italics.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ On the need for a prior distribution of property rights for the determination of a general equilibrium, see Malinvaud, E., Lectures on Microeconomic Theory.Google Scholar The distinction between “logical” and “historical” time in economics is stressed by Robinson, Joan, Essays in the Theory of Economic Growth (New York: St. Martins Press, 1968), p. 23.Google Scholar

⁴¹ See above, n. 15.

⁴² Dubofsky, Melvyn, Industrialism and the American Worker, 1865–1920 (New York: Thomas Crowell, 1975), p. 49.Google Scholar

⁴³ Harsanyi, J., “The Dimension and Measurement of Social Power,” in Rothschild, K. W., ed., Power in Economics (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1971), pp. 77–96.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Race, Jeffrey, War Comes to Long An: Revolutionary Conflict in a Vietnamese Province (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972), p. 144.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Dodgshon, Robert A., “A Spatial Perspective,” Peasant Studies, VI: 1 (01 1977), 8–18. Quote on p. 18.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Wallerstein, Immanuel, “American Slavery and the Capitalist World Economy,” American Journal of Sociology, 81 (03, 1976), 1199–1213.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Genovese, Eugene, Roll. Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made (New York: Pantheon, 1974).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Arrow, Kenneth J., The Limits of Organization (New York; W. W. Norton, 1974).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Marx, Karl, Capital, Vol. 1 (New York: International Publishers, 1967), Chap. 1 and pp. 236–38.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Ibid., 175–76.

⁵¹ Arrow, , p. 25, his emphasis.Google Scholar

⁵² Brenner, , ms. 12.Google Scholar

⁵³ This is equally true for socialist systems. Only if there is no difference between the desires of the individual and of the group does this cease to be a problem. For a lucid discussion, see Arrow, Chap. 1.

⁵⁴ This does not mean that the conflict is a zero-sum game, as we shall see.

⁵⁵ Harsanyi, , p. 79.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Hirschman, , Exit, Voice and Loyalty,Google Scholar the title he devised to study ways of improving an organization's performance. But the notion may be applied here as well.

⁵⁷ On the Mamluks, see Rivlin, Helen A. B., The Agricultural Policy of Muhammad 'Ali in Egypt (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1961), Ch. 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On Russia, Max Weber, General Economic History, p. 78.Google ScholarShaw, Stanford, “Landholding and Land Tax Revenues in Ottoman Egypt,” in Holt, P. M., ed., Political and Social Change in Modern Egypt (London: Oxford University Press, 1968), pp. 91–103.Google Scholar On cotton and whipping in the U.S. South, see e.g., Northup, Solomon, Twelve Years a Slave,Google Scholar selections reprinted in Rose, Willie Lee, ed., A Documentary History of Slavery in North America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976), pp. 307–15.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ On slave sales as a last resort, see Genovese, , Roll, Jordan, Roll, 450–58.Google Scholar On peasant land loss in Mamluk Egypt, Lancret, Michel-Ange, “Memoire sur le systeme d'imposition territoriale et sur l'administration des provinces de l'Egypte dans les dernières années du gouvernement des Mamlouks,” in Description de l'Egypte, état moderne, I (Paris, 1809), 244.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ See of course Marx, Capital, I.Google Scholar See also Kalcki, Michal, “Political Aspects of Full Employment,” in Feiwel, George, ed., The Last Phase in the Transformation of Capitalism: Selected Essays of Michal Kalecki (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1972), pp. 75–83.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Franz, , 303–04.Google Scholar “Mit Ehrerbietung und Beschiedenheit.”

⁶¹ Wunderlich, , p. 18.Google Scholar

⁶² Bauer, , p. 96. 166. Nahas.Google Scholar

⁶³ Simon, Daphne, “Master and Servant,” in Democracy and the Labour Movement, Saville, John, ed. (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1974), pp. 160–200. Quote on 190–191.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Marx, , Capital, I, p. 737.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Peacock, A. J., “Village Radicalism in East Anglia, 1800–1850,” in Dunbabin, J. P. D., Rural Discontent in Nineteenth Century Britain (New York: Holmes and Meier, 1974) pp. 27–61. Quote on 27.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Bauer, , p. 167.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Martinez-Alier, Juan, Haciendas, Plantations and Collective Farms, p. 87.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Egypt, , Ministry of Justice, Report of the Year 1901, p. 113Google Scholar; Sir Russell, Thomas, Egyptian Service. 1902–1946 (London, 1949, 79ffGoogle Scholar; Ministry of Justice, Report for the Year 1904, 16;Google ScholarReport for the Year 1908, 8.

⁶⁹ Russell, , p. 33.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Tilly, Charles et al. , The Rebellious Century, 1830–1930 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), p. 218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷¹ Weber, Max, Die Verhältnisse der Landarbeiter im ostelbischen Deutschland, pp. 110, 208–209, 380.Google Scholar

⁷² See Brewster, John, “The Machine Process in Agriculture and Industry,” Journal of Farm Economics, 32: 1 (02 1950).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷³ See Genovese and the now immense literature on the economics of U.S. antebellum slavery.

⁷⁴ Cf. Marx, : “As a general rule, laborers cannot cooperate without being brought together; their assemblage in one place is a necessary condition of their cooperation,” Capital, I, p. 329.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ The Egyptian case is discussed in more detail in my “Land and Labor on Egyptian Cotton Farms, 1880–1940,” Agricultural History, 52, 3 (07, 1978).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ There were two principal crop rotations on cotton lands. Under the “three-year rotation,” cotton, maize, beans, clover, and perhaps wheat or another small grain (millet) were grown over a three-year period. Large landlords retained this system until World War I; small peasants had largely switched to a two-year rotation of the same crops by that time. By 1940 most large landowners had joined them. For more detail see n. 85.

⁷⁷ 'Amr, Ibrahim, p. 107.Google ScholarLambert, A., “Les salaries dans l'entreprise agricole egyptien,” L'Egypte Contemporaine, 33 (1943), 223–35;Google ScholarSaffa, Samir, “Exploitation economique et agricole d'un domaine rural egyptien,” L'Egypte Contemporaine, 40 (1949), 277–450;Google ScholarReport by His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General on the Finances Administration and Condition of Egypt and the Soudan, 1903 (London, 1904), p. 71;Google ScholarGali, Kamel, Essai sur l'agriculture de l'Egypte (Paris: Henri Jouve, 1888), pp. 136–7;Google ScholarWillcocks, William, Egyptian Irrigation (London: F. Spon, 1913), p. 256.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ The Report, 1903, p. 71,Google Scholar gives the cash portion of the wages of tamaliyya as 25 P.T. per month, or roughly 1 P.T. per day, since it also reports that the workers worked for the owner 25 days per month. Ordinary day-laborers received about 3 P.T. at this time. The reasons for this wage differential are discussed below.

⁷⁹ Nahas, , p. 141Google Scholar; Ali-el-Rifai, Husein, La Question agraire en Egypte (Paris: A. Pedone, 1919), pp. 124–5.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Lecarpentier, G., L'Egypte moderne (Paris: P. Roget, 1914);el-Rifai, pp. 124–5;Google ScholarNahas, , p. 137Google Scholar; Lozach, J. and Hug, G., Le habitation rural en Egypte (Cairo: Societe royale de geographie del'Egypte, 1930), p. 191.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Le group des etudes d'Islam, L'Egypte Independente (Paris: Centre d'etudes d'Islam, 1937).Google Scholar

⁸² Nahas, , p. 145Google Scholar; Lambert, A.; Mboria, Lefter, La population de l'Egypte (Cairo: Procaccia, 1938), p. 149Google Scholar; el-Rifai, , p. 127Google Scholar; L'Egypte Independente, p. 294Google Scholar; Saleh, Muhammad, La petite propriete rurale en Egypte (Grenoble: J. Allier, 1922), pp. 70–72.Google Scholar

⁸³ Lambert, ; L'Egypte Independente, p. 294Google Scholar; Saab, Gabriel, The Egyptian Land Reform (London: Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 147Google Scholar; Abdel-Fadil, Mahmoud, Development, Income Distribution and Social Change in Rural Egypt, 1952–70 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), pp. 47–8.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Nahas, , p. 169.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Saffa, , pp. 410–11, 429Google Scholar; Lambert, ; 'Amr, p. 124Google Scholar; Husayn, Husni, “Ummel al-tarahil Fi-l-ard al-jadidah” (Tarahil Workers on New Land) al-Taliyya, 7, 1 (01, 1971), 20–27, 21Google Scholar; Nahas, , pp. 136, 146.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Small peasants used a more intensive rotation: First Year: Cotton (April–Nov.); Wheat, Barley or Beans (Nov.-May); Second Year: Fallow (June–July); Maize (July–November); Birsim (November–March). Zannis, J., Le crédit agricole en Egypte (Paris, 1937), p. 18.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Schanz, Moritz, Cotton in Egypt and the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan (Manchester: Taylor, Garnett, & Evans, 1913), p. 65Google Scholar; Safia, , p. 408.Google Scholar Schanz asserted that a boy could pick from 30 to 50 lbs. of cotton per day in 1914. At five cantars of 99 lbs. each, roughly 495 pounds had to be picked per feddan. However, he noted that only about one-half was gathered in the first picking, since the bolls did not all ripen simultaneously. This implies a minimum demand of five children per feddan. The actual demand was almost certainly higher because of the risk of storms, insects, etc., in which case all picking had to be done at once.

⁸⁸ Lambert, , and above, n. 85.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Nahas, , p. 136Google Scholar; Wells, H., “L'enseignement agricole, industriel et commercial de L'Egypte,” L'Egypte Contemporaine, 2 (1911), 358Google Scholar; el-Rifai, , p. 127.Google Scholar The photographs in Lozach show a long row of workers planting cotton seed, watched by overseers, sticks in hand: Lozach, J., Le Delta du Nil: Etude de Geographie Humaine (Cairo: E & R Schindler, 1935), PlancheVI.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Lambert, A., “Divers modes de faire valoir des terres en Egypte,” L'Egypte Contemporaine, 29 (1938), 181–200Google Scholar; L'Egypte Independente, pp. 288, 290Google Scholar; Ra'uf'Abbas Hamid, Muhammad, al-nidham al-ljtima'a fi misr fi-dhull al-mulkiyyat al-zira'iyya al-kabira, 1836–1914 (The Social System in Egypt Under the Influence of Large Agricultural Landownership) (Cairo: Dar al-ma'arif, 1973), pp. 175, 177–8Google Scholar; Lambert, “Les salaries.”

⁹¹ See Owen, E.R.J., Cotton and the Egyptian Economy (London: Oxford University Press, 1969).Google Scholar

⁹² Dickler, Robert A., “Organization and Change in Productivity in Eastern Prussia, Parker & Jones, 269–92, Table 7.1, 273.Google Scholar

⁹³ Franz, , p. 309.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Weber, , Die Verhältnisse, p. 57.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Knapp, Georg Friedrich, Die Bauern-Befreiung undder Ursprung der Landarbeiter in der dlteren Theilen Preussens (Leipzig: Verlag Duncker & Humbolt, 1887).Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Wunderlich, , pp. 8–9.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Saalfeld, D., “Zur Frage des bäuerlichen Landverlustes im Zusammenhang mit den preussischen Agrarreform,” Zeitschrift für Agrargeschichte, 11 (1963).Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Franz, , p. 297.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Borchardt, Knut, “The Industrial Revolution in Germany, 1700–1914,” in The Fontana Economic History of Europe, IV, 1, Cipolla, Carlo, ed. (Glasgow: Fontana, 1973), p. 98.Google Scholar See also Franz, , pp. 297–302.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Franz, , p. 301.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Wunderlich, , p. 9Google Scholar; cf. the discussion of robot labor in the Austrian Empire by Blum, Jerome, Noble Landowners and Agriculture in Austria, 1815–1848: A Study in the Origins of the Peasant Emancipation of 1848 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1948), p. 192ff.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Abel, , p. 308.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Conze, Werner, “The Effects of Nineteenth-Century Liberal Agrarian Reforms on Social Structure in Central Europe” in Crouzet, F., Chaloner, W. H. and Stern, W. M., eds., Essays in European Economic History, 1789–1914 (London: Edward Arnold, 1969), pp. 53–81.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Tipton, Frank B. Jr., Regional Variations in the Economic Development of Germany During the Nineteenth Century, Middletown, Conn: Wesleyan University Press, 1976.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Abel, , pp. 300–1.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Nichweiss, Johannes, “Zur Frage der Zweiten Leibeigenschaft und des sogennauten preussischen Wages der Entwicklung des Kapitalismus in der Landwirtschaft Ostdeutschlands,” Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, 5 (1953), pp. 687–717. See esp. pp. 699–700.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ van Bath, B. H. Slicher, The Agrarian History of Western Europe, A.D. 500–1850, Ordish, Olive, trans. (London: Edward Arnold, 1963), pp. 249–50.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Franz, , p. 285.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Abel, , 308–9.Google Scholar Clover required fencing; thus it ran afoul of the open-field system of property rights in land use. On the average practice for 1800, see Franz, , p. 285.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Haushofer, Heinz, Die deutsche Landwirtschaft im technischen Zeitalter (Stuttgart: Verlag Eugen Ulmer, 1963), p. 45.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Numerous examples of improved crop rotations exist. Franz, , pp. 285–86,Google Scholar gives the following: Three-field system: 1. Winter Cereal (Rye, Wheat) 2. Summer Cereal (Barley, Oats) 3. Fallow. Twelve-field system: 1. Fallow 2. Winter Cereal 3. Summer Cereal 4. Clover 5. Winter Cereal 6. Summer Cereal 7. Root crops 8. Winter Cereal 9. Summer Cereal 10. Legume 11. Winter Cereal 12. Summer Cereal. Norfolk system: 1. Sugar Beets 2. Barley 3. Clover 4. Clover/Fallow 5. Wheat 6. Barley. Krzymowski, Richard, Geschichte der deutschen Landwirtschaft (Stuttgart: Eugen Ulmer, 1951), p. 268Google Scholar, gives these examples: A. 1. “Fallow crops”: Clover, Potatoes, Beets 2. Cereals 3. Cereals 4. Fallow (16.7 percent of cultivated area) 5. Cereals 6. Cereals B. 1. “Fallow crops” 2. Cereals 3. Cereals 4. Fallow crops 5. Cereals 6. Cereals 7. Fallow (11 percent of cultivated area) 8. Cereals 9. Cereals.

¹¹² Haushofer, , p. 45.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Dickler, , p. 273. By 1907 the ratio had fallen to. 07.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Franz, , p. 307.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Franz, , p. 307;Google ScholarAbel, , p. 310.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Helling, Gertrud, “Berechnung eines Index der Agrarproduktion in Deutschland in 19, Jahrhundert.” Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte, V (1965), 125–51, 134.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Franz, , p. 309.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Franz, , pp. 286–87; 309.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Franz, , p. 310,Google ScholarAbel, , p. 315.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Helling, Gertrud, “Zur Entwicklung der Produktivität in der deutschen Landwirtschaft im 19 Jahrhundert.” Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte, V (1966), 127–141, 139;Google ScholarDickler, , p. 286.Google Scholar

¹²¹ Helling, , “Berechnung,” p. 128.Google Scholar

¹²² Cf. Genovese, Eugene, The Political Economy of Slavery. (New York: Random House, 1965).Google Scholar The increased average weight of animals over the period constitutes evidence that the animals were indeed cared for. Slaughterweights of cattle, for example, rose 60% between 1800 and 1850: Franz, , p. 311.Google Scholar

¹²³ Weber, , Die Verhältnisse, pp. 17, 95.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Rogin, Leo, The Introduction of Farm Machinery in its Relation to the Productivity of Labor in the Agriculture of the United States During the Nineteenth Century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1931), p. 179.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Franz, , pp. 292–3.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Rogin, , pp. 180–82.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Franz, , p. 310Google Scholar: From 2.70 million in 1800 to 2.73 million in 1850.

¹²⁸ Lorenz, Robert, The Essential Features of Germany's Agricultural Policy from 1870 to 1937. Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1941, p. 27.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Timmer, C. Peter, “The Turnip, the New Husbandry, and the English Agricultural Revolution.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 83, 3 (08, 1969), 374–95, quote from 394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³⁰ Weber, , Die Verhällnisse, pp. 11–12.Google Scholar

¹³¹ Ibid.

¹³² Franz, , p. 303Google Scholar. There were many regional variations, exhaustively described in Weber, Die Verhältnisse.Google Scholar

¹³³ Ibid., p. 11.

¹³⁴ Ibid., 13.

¹³⁵ Ibid., passim.

¹³⁶ cf. Conze, Werner, “The Effects,” p. 67.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Weber, , Die Verhältnisse, p. 11, 62Google Scholar; Gerhardt, Felix, Die Landarbeiter in der Provinz Oslpreussen (Lucka: Druck von Reinhart Berger, 1902), p. 18.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ See Lütge, , p. 389Google Scholar; Franz, , p. 302.Google Scholar

¹³⁹ Franz, , p. 303Google Scholar; Lorenz, , p. 26.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Franz, , p. 303.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Cited in Conze, , “The Effects,” p. 66.Google Scholar

¹⁴² Lorenz, , p. 26Google Scholar; Gerhardt, , p. 27.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ Weber, , Die Verhähnisse, p. 145.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ Kay, Cristobal, Comparative Development of the European Manorial System and the Latin American Hacienda System: An Approach to a Theory of Agrarian Change for Chile, Ph.D. diss.. University of Sussex, 1971.Google ScholarBauer, , Chilean Rural Society. The following discus sion relies heavily upon Bauer's work.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ Bauer, , p. 15Google Scholar; Loveman, , p. 29.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ Bauer, , p. 163.Google Scholar Whether they would leave was another matter. See above, II.

¹⁴⁷ Ibid., pp. 146. 158.

¹⁴⁸ Ibid., p. 73; quote on p. 16.

¹⁴⁹ Ibid., p. 53; Loveman, p. 29.

¹⁵⁰ Bauer, , p. 52.Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ Ibid., pp. 53, 162; Loveman, , p. 49.Google Scholar

¹⁵² Bauer, , pp. 53, 98–99, 142–43Google Scholar; Schejtman, , p. 197.Google Scholar

¹⁵³ Bauer, , pp. 122–23.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ Ibid., p. 155.

¹⁵⁵ Bauer, Arnold, “Chilean Rural Labor in the Nineteenth Century,” American Histor Review, 76: 4 (10 1971), 1059–83, 1078, n. 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵⁶ Schejtman, , p. 192.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁷ Bauer, , Chilean Rural Society, p. 104.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁸ Ibid., pp. 159–60.

¹⁵⁹ Ibid., pp. 159–61, 153; Schejtman, , p. 197.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁰ Schejtman, , p. 192.Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ Ibid., p. 196.

¹⁶² Bauer, , Chilean Rural Society, p. 96.Google Scholar

¹⁶³ Ibid., p. 166.

¹⁶⁴ Kula, Witold, pp. 44–61.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁵ “Social articulation is obtained when the modern sector is oriented to the production of wage-goods; and hence, the capacity to consume of the economic system develops through rising real wages in relationship to rising productivity of labor. Under social disarticulation, realization is obtained either through the external sector … or through partial consumption of the return to capital and rents. The relationship between realisation and rising wages is lost. The rate of capital accumulation is maximized by minimizing wages.” de Janvry, Alain and Garramon, Carlos, “The Dynamics of Rural Poverty in Latin America,” Journal of Peasant Studies, 4: 3 (04 1977) 206–07.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶⁶ Weber, , Die Verhältnisse, pp. 32–35.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁷ Bowles, Samuel and Gintis, Herbert, “The Marxian Theory of Value and Heterogeneous Labour: A Critique and a Reformulation,” Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1: 2 (1977), 173–92.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁸ See e.g., Chambers, J. D. and Mingay, G. E., The Agricultural Revolution 1750–1880 (London: B. T. Batsford, 1966),Google Scholar and Thompson, F. M. L., “The Second Agricultural Revolution 1815–1880,” Economic History Review, 21 (1968), 62–77.Google Scholar